this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2024
139 points (98.6% liked)

Technology

59143 readers
2314 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Identical text perceived as less credible when presented as a Wikipedia article than as simulated ChatGPT or Alexa output. The researchers note that these results might be influenced by the fact that it is easier to discern factual errors on a static text page like a Wikipedia than when listening to the spoken audio of Alexa or watching the streaming chat-like presentation of ChatGPT.

However, exploratory analyses yielded an interesting discrepancy between perceived information credibility when being exposed to actual information and global trustworthiness ratings regarding the three information search applications. Here, online encyclopedias were rated as most trustworthy, while no significant differences were observed between voice-based and dynamic text-based agents.

Contrary to our predictions, people felt higher enjoyment [measured using questions like "I found reading the information / listening to the information entertaining"] when information was presented as static or dynamic text compared to the voice-based agent, while the two text-based conditions did not significantly differ. In Experiment 2, we expected to replicate this pattern of results but found that people also felt higher enjoyment with the dynamic text-based agent than the static text.

Edit: Added "for credibility" to title

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 33 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

They did recently, or at least within the last year or so. Naturally, I hate it. lol

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I've seen the redesign too and not really sure how I feel about it πŸ˜‚ there's a lot of additional whitespace and it kinds looks like a blown up mobile version of the site

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

The whitespace and the popovers. I get really annoyed reading a page and accidentally bump the cursor over something and a popup preview covers up what I'm reading. Or I'll be scrolling with the keyboard and a linked word scrolls under the cursor and the popover appears. Then it triggers popovers on every word as I move the mouse out of the way.

Feels like navigating a mine field. That's the part I'm most split on: sometimes I find that useful, most times it's a nuisance.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

linked word scrolls under the cursor and the popover appears

Nobody wants that. It's bug report worthy.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

How would you fix it? HTML hover triggers don’t care if you scrolled.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Page previews are unrelated to and have been around before the redesign. You can turn it off by clicking on the cog in the corner of the preview. To avoid the minefield issue… just move your cursor outside the minefield? This is yet another thing limited width helps, but you can still have your cursor stay at the unibar.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago

I made https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Aaron_Liu/v22.css to fix that. Otherwise I adore the design.